Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 3, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 November 1859 — Important Political Document. [ARTICLE]

Important Political Document.

LFrom the St. Louis Evening News, Nov. 8.

Authoritative Exposition of the Position of Edward Ha'es on the Slavery Question. •IIEEDUM THE RULE—SLAVERY THE EXCEPTION. fcHtme of the Opposition papers of Missouri (the St. Joseph lies! among them.) while admitting the indecency of private citizens, who suppose theinselve candidates for the Presidency, thrusting their opinions on all questions; unasked, on the country, nevertheless appear to think that the case of Edward Bates is an exception. They claim that Mr. Bates stands so prominently before the country as a possible candidate for the Presidency, and that the anxiety of Missourians is so great to declare in favor of him, if his views on the Slavery Question are acceptable to them, that Mr. Bates ought to make public his views on that one subject at least. Otherwise, many sitizens, after committing tfiemselves to his support, might find themselves in a false position. There will-fee no occasion for any citizen ever feeling any embarrassment on Mr. Bates’ account. He is not a candidate lor the Presidency, and will not seem, by publishing letters unasked, and on even the most trifling occasion, to be courting attention to his views. But it Mr. Bates should be made a candidate by the authoritative voice of his countrymen, he will obtain no vote upon false pretenses. He will stand upon no juggle, like the Cincinnati Platform, with its ambiguous and double reading. The country will know bis position on all questions, manifestly as if in letters of living light Till then, Mr. Bates’ views of Slavery will not probably be more formally set forth. But as the Evening News, several months ago, presented the name of Mr. Bates as a tavorite of the St. Louis Opposition for the Presidency, it is reasonable to be supposed that we had sufficient knowledge of his opinions on this and other subjects, to justify the nomination of him. It may be that we know enough of his views, even now, to satisfy the more importunate querists in the matter. The following are what we are sure will be found to be the views of Edward Bates on the Slavery question: SLAVERY NOT BENEFICIAL SOCIALLY, FOLITI- - OK RELIGIOUSLY. Mr. Bates does not believe that “African Slavery is the corner-stone of Liberty.” He does not believe that African Slavery is n beneficial Institution, either in a social, political or religious sense. Not in a social sense, because it sets at naught the family relation and separates man uijd wife, parents and children, at the caprice, or on the necessities of owners; not in a political

sense, because it is productive of discords ; between nations that tolerate it and nations that do not, and because it is liable to panics, commotions, insurrections and massacres, and has ended often in bloody revolutions; not in h religious sense, because it shuts the mind against knowledge, makes the word of God a sealed book to the Slave, and gives his body to the service of a human master, whereas the body of every created being should be freelv given to the service of God. ITS EXTENSION UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPT BY AFFIRMATIVE LEGISLATION. Because Mr. Bates dops not believe that Slavery is a beneficial institution, either in asocial, political, or religious sense, he is unalterably opposed to its extension into Territories already free. Mr. Bates, in his political creed, is a Henry Clay Whig; ar.d Mr. Clay declared that his“right arm should drop from his shoulder befo-e he would vote to extend Slavery over one foot of territory already free.” Mr. Bates heartily endorses that sentiment, arid holds to that creed. Mr. Bates does not believe that the Constitution, by its proper vigor carries Slavery into all the Territories that may he acquired by the United States. He believes that Freedom is the Rule, and Slavery the exception. He does not believe that Slavery can exist in any territory acquired by the Government of the United States, except by the positive’law of Congress. Thai positive law Mr. Bates would not be in favor of passing, because for reasons already given, he is opposed to the extension of slavery i nto territory already free, DISTINCTION BETWEEN SLAVE AND OTHER property Coeval with the government. If it be held that this exclusion of slave property from Territory “acquired by the common biood and treasure of the Union,” establishes an invidious distinction between

; two sections of the Union—that it denies to ; the South rights that are freely given to tire North —Mr. Bates denies emphatically that it has any such effect. The distinction complained of is coeval with the Government, iltis no new thing—no modern hardship—in fact no hardship at all. The localizing of slavery—the prohibitioin of its emigrating and establishing itself in Free Territory, was embodied in the compact of the Union, iat the beginning. Bnt for this limitation : the Slave States got far more than an equivI al 'nt in being allowed in the National Congress and in the Presidential election three votes for every five slaves. Slaves do not vote but their masters vote for them. The vetes of two men in the South counts as much as the votes of five men in the Free j States. • CITIZEN OF NEW YORK POSSESSING RIGHT OF ; PROPERTY NOT HELD RY A VIRGINIAN. Why should this be so! If slaves are only property, as Southern men will say, why should not the Northern man’s property vote also. It is all only property. When the slaveholder is disposed to complain, therefore, that a distinction is made against him—that he can’t go into the common Territory j of the country and* take his property, the citizen ©f the free State can reply: “it i? \ not property like my property that you wish to take, but it is property that votes, it is ; property that gives you two and a half votes \ to my one—it is property that makes me ; Inferior to you, in our relations to the Federal Government; and that is not fair when we -come to occupy what has been bought by ‘the common blood and treasure of the Union.’ ” This destinction between free property ! and slave property is, as before stated, as old as the Constitution itself. If there were no Territories at all the same distinction would exist. A citizen of New York can remove his domicile to the State of Ohio and carry all his property with him and hold it. A citizen of Virginia cannot remove to the State of Ohio and carry all his propeity with \ h:in and. hold it. He can’t do it now. lie couldn’t do it ten years ago, nor twenty years ago, nor at any time since Ohio existed as a State of the Union. Why is this no! Does not the Constilutio i prevail equally over all the Union? Does not. the very language of the second edition of the JVth article of the Constitution of the United States declare that “the citizens of each State shall be untitled to all privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States!” SLAVERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ONLY BY LOCAL LAW. Yet we find that citizens of Massachusetts posses, and have possessed for over fifty years, certain privileges in the matter of i changing their domiciles, which the citizens ot Virginia do not possess. One can go to Ohio and carry his prop rty and keep it. j The other -cannot. And yet demagogues ! would have Southern men believe that no j I discrimination against their property ought, to 1 ; exist, or ever did exist, ant! that to enforce i ; such discrimination in the settlement of new j States would he to establish a distinction between certain classes of property which the South cannot, in honor, submit to! If slavery cannot go into the Free States and maintain itself, why should it expect to go into Free Territories and maintain itself—there being in neither case local laws to protect it! Is not the Constitution of the Uni-; ; ted States as vigorous, as comnrehensive, as just in Ohio as it is in Kansas! Does it not. regard the property —the vested rights—of i ali citizens, in all places of the Rejuihlic, as , equally sacred! If slavery is national!—if it exists in the Constitution itself —how can 1 the Constitution permit an owner of such property to be despoiled of it in a free State, any more than in a free Territory! Can a State he permitted to nullify the rights of man in property that is recognized in the Constitution of the United States—and the Federal Government have no power to interfere! Of course not; fonthe Constitution says tiiat “the United S'ates shall guaran'ee to every State a Republican form of Government.” But such « State Government despoiling a man of his right would not he Republic but Despotic. It is clear that if slavery be the rule—if it he national—if it exists in the Constitution, and is carried wherever the Constitution prevails—that it is as sacred in Ohio us in Kansas and as firmly to be upheld in either, as on the banks of the Sabine. Wherever the flag of the Union floats, there every citizen is entitled to protection in all his rights, that are national and Constitutional. Such would be the case with regard to slave property, i! slavery is national.

THE DISCRIMI NATION N EVER THOUGHT A HARDSHIP by the South. But this is not so. It is net claimed even by the South, and never has been, tiiat a slave owner has a right to remove with his negroes to a Free State, and call on the United States Government to protect him in his properly. Yet his right to go to a Free State is as perfect under the United States Constitution, as it is to go to a Free Territory. Was Kansas acquired by “the common Lffood and treasure of the Union!” So was lowa—and what right has lowa, any more than Kansas, to discriminate against property so as to deprive the citizens of any portion of the Union of their National and Constitutional rights! This discrimination against slave property, as regards emigration into Free States, we have (bus shown, has always existed, and never by the South been thought a hardship. And why! Because, perhaps, the citizens of the Slave States felt that in the privilege to vote on on their slaves, that, species of property had obtained a peculiar and tianscendent advantage over ail other property in the Union, tiiat more than compensated lor its own restriction, to wit: that it should not enter into and establish itself in the Free States. If the South is-tired of this discrimination against slave property, which has existed since the Government was established, and desires it abandoned, then the South should propose to abandon, also, the privileges that such properly enjoys. Surely it is only lai t that property should, in point of fact, become equal before it claims to go as equal into the common territory of the Union. If the South decline the one, how can it fairly claim the ether. THE SOUTH IN HONOR Ti lUNI) TO THE ORIGINAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY LAW.

Mr. Bates does not, therefore, regard the j non-admission of slavery into the territories [of the Union, as establishing a distinction bei tween property; but simply maintaining a j distinction already established, willingly assented to by the South at the formation of ■the Government, and ever since. It is only I at the instance of mischievous demagogues j that the South is now templed to change its i position, and abandon the literal and tradij lion::) compromises of the Constitution. As | a true and upright citizen, who loves hi< ! country's well kept faith as he does his own j private honor, Mr. Bates opposes the at- | tempt of Southern fanatics- to make slavery overleap its original rights, limitations, and ! relations to other property of the Union. Inasmuch us the entire Democratic partv jof the Free States are as decidedly opposed i as even the Republican party to the exten- ! sion of slavery over territory previously free, it is quite eviduit that Congress will never : intervene to protect slave property in the | territories. Such being the fact, those ! Southern men who object to Mr. Bates as a ! slavery restrictionist, might well ask themselves whether more of honor or advantage is gained by asking what cannot b ■ had, and submitting to the fatal necessity of denial and defeat, or asking only that the present limits, privileges and guarantees of slavery I. be maintained, and obtaining it with the cheerful and hearty concurrence of »isei tenths of all parties in the Union, r : THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL RENDERING THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVERY IN El TERRITORIES IMPOSSIBLE. If the National Demjcracy offer m >re to the South, wo know they offer what they cannot give, ami do not mean to try to give. The history of Kansas is too recent and too ii>jstructive, in which we saw the most violent [pro-slavery Democrats, as they professed | themselves, after getting men and money j from the - outh, by hundreds and by thousands, to save Kansas to the South,suddeniy | become Free Democrats, -when they found ‘success doubtful under the pro-slavery bun- | uer; and they sought office as Free Demo, | crats, unblushingly declaring that slavery ; never had been an issue in Kansas. The | principle of the Kansas-Nebraska hill, in the shape-of Squatter Sovereignty, has rendered the introduction of Slavery into Territories \ impossible; and the passage of that hill was the work of the National Democracy. Mr. i Bates merely holds as a principle that which the Democracy have established as a fact. \ The question of slavery extension is no longer before the people. It is discussed • now only as an abstraction. If Mr. Bates dees not believe slavery to : ibe a wise and useful institution—if he isopl posed to its extension into territories already free—he nevertheless just as firmly adheres to the rights of property in slaves in all the States where slavery exists, and will go just as far to protect the rights oi' States in that species of property, as long as those States choose to keep it, as any man living. | i FAVORS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FUGITIVE

SLAVE LAW. Air. Bates believes in the unqualified right of the owner to recover bis slaves if they j escape to a Free State; and if President, Ire i would execute the Fugitive Slave Law, if 'the army ami navy of the Government were equal to lire task. And if the Fugitive Slave Law should be repealed, or should be found inadequate to the service ol returning absconding Slaves to their masters, Mr. Bates would urgently recommend to Congress to pass some law that would more certainly and more acceptably carry oqt the constitutional guarantees of the rights of Southern slaveholders. He would consider the Union a broken compact, if these plain guarantees were denied by the deliberate and persevering action of any party of the Confederacy. If Congress, clearly/representing the will ol the country, should pass*-laws legalizing and protecting slaveqiroporty in Territories previously Iree, Mr. Bates would execute lho.se laws as promptly as,any other law in the land. If a Territory should organize into a State, with a sufficient population to justify its admission, and present a constitution tolerating slavery, Mr. Bates would not oppose the admission of such State because it had a pro-slavery constitution. REJOICE THAT MISSOURI IS BECOMING A FREE STATE. His creed is, that every State has a right to say how much it wants of African slavery, and how long it wants it, and how to get rid of it when its people are tired of it. He does not regard it as a perpetual institution, hut as in its very nature abnormal and evanescent, changing rapidly under the influence of climate, commerce, civilization religion, laws. He knows-(and is glad to know it) that Missouri is rapidly becoming a Free State; and he does not deplore the fact that it is by transportation and not by einanripa-'

tion that tihe State is becoming Free, for lie knows that the emancipation of slakes to remain in this country and mix with the whites is abhorrent and intolerable. To send them abroad by sudden and total exodus is beyond the means of -any government. What is beyond his own wisdom, he leaves to the inscrutable Ways arid infinite wisdom of God. The fapid arid peaceful extinction of slavery that is going oh in Missouri, without the aid of “Emancipation Parties,’' arid without the heat and acrimony of domestic discord, is entirely in accordance with the views and feelings of Mr. Bates. While Mr. Bates is glad to see slavery declining in Missouri, other strong Oppositionists are sorry to witness the same. SLAVERY BEYOND REACH OF DEMAGOGUES FREE LABOR BOUND TO become dominant. Mr. Bates finds no cause of discord between himself and 'hat pro-slavery neighbor on account of this difference; tor he knows that neither the joy of the one, nor thi sorrow of the other, will quicken or delay the inevitable consummation that is ahead. Mr. Bates regards the f ate of slavery as out of the domain of demagogues—utterly beyond their reach —and impelled by that power that brings the times and seasons to their uppointed course, and rolls up the Heavens ak~ i a scroll, when lie has done with the wondrous panorama. By bis own example he has shown that he pref'rsto live by his own ; labor, anti noton the labor of slaves. But he claims to be, in this particular, only a ; “law unto himself.” j THE NECESSITY OF PROCURING FOREIGN TERRITORY FOR COLONIZING FREE BLACKS. | He would never, under any circumstances, countenance a National organization having in view the interference with slavery in the ■ Stales. The entire function of the Federal j Government in regard to slavery, in his opini ion, should he to protect it where it is—not to extend it where it is not —-and, so far nsI policy an 1 ability may allow, to help those States get clear of it that mav wish to do’ : so, by the procurement of foreign territorysuitable to the ready and cheap colonization! of free blaks, already become a grievous nuisance to every State of the Union, both free and slave. This is a National nuisance, and should begin to find a National remedy The policy already broached in some , States of selling again into slavery the free blacks whom humane and grateful misters have emancipated, unless those freed persons leave the State—when, indeed, ail theslave States, and many of the free, prohibit their entrance within their limits und< r heavy penalties, is, in the higliest deariecruel. It is barbar-m-s. And it wonld'disgraee tne American* Government in the fao-o of Uh-i stofHk>tn to- permit such a policy to prevail from the lack of its own intervention 3o procure a suitable Dome for these sorelybunted and distressed freemen of a well worked and; faithful servile race.